None of us will ever feel calmly about what happened on
September 11, 2001, and what may happen in the future. We cannot expect a young
administration to form a coherent policy to meet an enormous challenge in just a
few days or weeks. But we must demand greater deliberation. And for that we need
time.

Things are moving very fast in Washington. Perhaps too fast.

The rhetoric of officials rapidly vacillates between calm determination and
harsh calls for revenge and war against those who perpetrated the attacks
against New York and Washington. Our government has told us to prepare for a
long war against terrorism, the warships have left the harbor, and the Congress
has acted swiftly to pass relevant legislation.

Yet the magnitude of the crime, the great stakes involved, and the fact that
previous anti-terrorist strategies failed to prevent these attacks ought to give
our leaders pause.

Why does Washington find it so hard to slow down? First, leaders
optimistically assume that they are immune from the pernicious effects of fear
on foreign policy decision making. But this is assumption is dangerous.

Every foreign policy decision maker in Washington is operating under
tremendous stress. Many in the capital, including members of Congress who are
considering drafting a war powers resolution, had to abandon their offices yet
again under fear of a bomb attack. The President and all the members of the
National Security staff have had their lives threatened. The secretary of
defense and all the joint chiefs were assaulted. It is no wonder that now
members of Congress and the military are talking of broad and sustained military
assaults, or perhaps even for a war against the entire country of
Afghanistan.

Government officials are brave to walk into buildings that they know or have
good reason to suspect were and may still be targets of terrorist attack.

Immediately following the attacks on the United States, U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan said, “In such moments cool and reasoned judgments are
more essential than ever.” But under these conditions we cannot expect
cool judgments from the political and military leadership.

Instead, as research in psychology and foreign policy decision making shows,
the President and Congress may take rash steps that they come to regret as they
try to operate in such a tense environment. Fearful and angry actors tend to
function less well in conditions like those faced in Washington this week. The
effects of fear are physiological and cognitive.

Specifically, fearful actors focus on threats – even seeing them when
they aren’t there. The fearful also tend to reach for aggressive solutions
and screen out information and arguments that suggest those solutions might be
ineffective or perhaps even counterproductive over the long run.

Fearful actors also often place great emphasis on short-term consequences of
actions, while de-emphasizing the long term. Massive retaliation feels right
now; will it be right in six months or a few years?

In sum, those who had their lives threatened or were directly attacked just a
few days ago must fight the (understandable) physiological and cognitive effects
of fear.

The administration emphasizes its “quiet anger” and its resolve
for justice. But this is not the time to rush into granting broad war powers to
the President, or for developing a policy of massive retaliation against
terrorists. We must instead gather information, rescue those who may still be at
risk, protect ourselves from immediate harm, and develop a long term strategy
for dealing with terrorism. A sweeping and massive military response may only
fuel the cycle of violence and stiffen the resolve of the terrorists to strike
back.

Official Washington also rushes to act because it assumes all of us want
immediate relief. But the President and Congress should not assume that the
American people necessarily want massive retaliation. Instead, we would rather
that the solution devised be effective. We cannot expect a young administration
to form a coherent policy to an enormous challenge in just a few days or
weeks.

None of us will ever feel calmly about what happened on Tuesday and what may
happen in the future. But we must demand greater deliberation. And for that we
need time.

Neta Crawford is a visiting associate professor (research) at the Thomas J.
Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies at Brown University and assistant
professor of political science at the University of
Massachusetts–Amherst.